[ EDITORIAL ]

Nuclear Decommissioning: Crystal River Shutdown

Published: Saturday, February 9, 2013 at 12:24 a.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, February 9, 2013 at 12:24 a.m.

This week's momentous decision to retire the Crystal River reactor should remind Floridians that one of nuclear power's greatest vulnerabilities comes in the shape of dollar signs.

The $1.4 billion-and-increasing cost of repairing the nuclear power plant's containment wall was a key factor in the decision to throw in the towel. The company's power customers paid for much of the repair effort. They will get some reimbursement, thanks to an insurance settlement, but may not get all their money back, depending on how regulators set rates.

Crystal River — which lies along the Gulf north of Tampa — will be the first major nuclear plant in the Southeast to permanently close, reports the Tampa Bay Times. The reactor has been off since 2009, when the containment building was damaged during an effort to upgrade the 35-year-old facility. The site's coal-fired generators — which contribute to greenhouse-gas pollution and smog — continue to operate.

The case exposes weaknesses in consumer-protection and rate-setting aspects of statewide regulation. Florida's Public Service Commission long has been accused of putting the financial interests of utilities before the pocketbook concerns of customers.

Ultimately, Crystal River also raises questions about the wisdom of Florida's plans for future reactors — one of them proposed just miles from the reactor that is being decommissioned.

Advocates contend that next-generation nuclear power is needed in order to reduce fossil-fuel pollution, which contributes to dangerous climate change. They also say nuclear energy provides a steady source of power with long-term price predictability, unlike fossil fuels.

There are other reasons, as well, to question the push for new nuclear plants. Their up-front price (about $24 billion) is so huge that the private sector won't touch such projects without federal guarantees and subsidies, shifting risk onto taxpayers.

The proposals rely on new reactor designs whose long-term safety has not been proved. Reactors produce radioactive waste, for which no permanent storage site has been established.

If an accident occurs, the potential for irremediable loss cannot be dismissed. And decommissioning takes decades and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Other sustainable-energy developments, including solar panels and simple conservation, look smarter in comparison to nuclear.

Duke Energy, a subsidiary of which owns the Crystal River site, reportedly is considering building a new natural-gas-fired plant there.

When a company as large as Duke — whose utility portfolio includes other reactors — decides that a vintage nuclear power plant is too costly to fix, it's a sign industry proponents should not ignore.

<p>This week's momentous decision to retire the Crystal River reactor should remind Floridians that one of nuclear power's greatest vulnerabilities comes in the shape of dollar signs.</p><p>The $1.4 billion-and-increasing cost of repairing the nuclear power plant's containment wall was a key factor in the decision to throw in the towel. The company's power customers paid for much of the repair effort. They will get some reimbursement, thanks to an insurance settlement, but may not get all their money back, depending on how regulators set rates.</p><p>Crystal River — which lies along the Gulf north of Tampa — will be the first major nuclear plant in the Southeast to permanently close, reports the Tampa Bay Times. The reactor has been off since 2009, when the containment building was damaged during an effort to upgrade the 35-year-old facility. The site's coal-fired generators — which contribute to greenhouse-gas pollution and smog — continue to operate.</p><p>The case exposes weaknesses in consumer-protection and rate-setting aspects of statewide regulation. Florida's Public Service Commission long has been accused of putting the financial interests of utilities before the pocketbook concerns of customers.</p><p>Ultimately, Crystal River also raises questions about the wisdom of Florida's plans for future reactors — one of them proposed just miles from the reactor that is being decommissioned.</p><p>Advocates contend that next-generation nuclear power is needed in order to reduce fossil-fuel pollution, which contributes to dangerous climate change. They also say nuclear energy provides a steady source of power with long-term price predictability, unlike fossil fuels.</p><p>However, Crystal River's unexpectedly expensive containment-wall problem — some estimates indicated repair costs could have exceeded $3 billion — undercuts the price-predictability argument.</p><p> </p><p><b>QUESTIONS FOR NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS</b></p><p>There are other reasons, as well, to question the push for new nuclear plants. Their up-front price (about $24 billion) is so huge that the private sector won't touch such projects without federal guarantees and subsidies, shifting risk onto taxpayers.</p><p>The proposals rely on new reactor designs whose long-term safety has not been proved. Reactors produce radioactive waste, for which no permanent storage site has been established.</p><p>If an accident occurs, the potential for irremediable loss cannot be dismissed. And decommissioning takes decades and hundreds of millions of dollars.</p><p>Other sustainable-energy developments, including solar panels and simple conservation, look smarter in comparison to nuclear.</p><p>Duke Energy, a subsidiary of which owns the Crystal River site, reportedly is considering building a new natural-gas-fired plant there.</p><p>When a company as large as Duke — whose utility portfolio includes other reactors — decides that a vintage nuclear power plant is too costly to fix, it's a sign industry proponents should not ignore.</p><p>They tell us nuclear technology will produce safe, reasonably priced energy. Crystal River says otherwise.</p>